IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v66y2008i3-4p731-747.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Endogenous entry and self-selection in private value auctions: An experimental study

Author

Listed:
  • Palfrey, Thomas R.
  • Pevnitskaya, Svetlana

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an experimental study of endogenous entry in first-price independent private value auctions. N potential bidders simultaneously decide whether to participate in an auction or receive a known outside option. In the second stage, entrants submit bids after learning their own private values and the number of entrants. An equilibrium model of heterogeneous risk averse bidders implies a self-selection effect, where bidding in the auction is lower with endogenous entry because only less risk averse bidders enter. This effect is confirmed by the experiment. We also observe excessive entry relative to the theoretical model.

Suggested Citation

  • Palfrey, Thomas R. & Pevnitskaya, Svetlana, 2008. "Endogenous entry and self-selection in private value auctions: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(3-4), pages 731-747, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:66:y:2008:i:3-4:p:731-747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-2681(07)00006-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2002. "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 247-272, May.
    2. James Cox & Sam Dinkin & James Swarthout, 2001. "Endogenous Entry and Exit in Common Value Auctions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(2), pages 163-181, October.
    3. Fey, Mark & McKelvey, Richard D & Palfrey, Thomas R, 1996. "An Experimental Study of Constant-Sum Centipede Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(3), pages 269-287.
    4. Morgan John & Steiglitz Ken & Reis George, 2003. "The Spite Motive and Equilibrium Behavior in Auctions," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-27, April.
    5. Svetlana Pevnitskaya, 2003. "Endogenous Entry in First-Price Private Value Auctions: the Self-Selection Effect," Working Papers 03-03, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
    6. McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
    7. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Poen, Eva & Reiß, J. Philipp, 2004. "Bidding with outside options," Papers 04-21, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    8. Levin, Dan & Smith, James L, 1994. "Equilibrium in Auctions with Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 585-599, June.
    9. Cox, James C & Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1988. "Theory and Individual Behavior of First-Price Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 61-99, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Salmon, Timothy C., 2011. "The high/low divide: Self-selection by values in auction choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 200-214, September.
    2. David Reiley, 2004. "Experimental evidence on the endogenous entry of bidders in internet auctions," Framed Field Experiments 00196, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Mark Isaac & Svetlana Pevnitskaya & Kurt S. Schnier, 2012. "Individual Behavior And Bidding Heterogeneity In Sealed Bid Auctions Where The Number Of Bidders Is Unknown," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 516-533, April.
    4. Gentry, Matthew & Li, Tong & Lu, Jingfeng, 2015. "Existence of monotone equilibrium in first price auctions with private risk aversion and private initial wealth," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 214-221.
    5. J.M.J. Delnoij & K.J.M. De Jaegher, 2016. "Competing first-price and second-price auctions," Working Papers 16-07, Utrecht School of Economics.
    6. Michalis Drouvelis & Julian C. Jamison, 2015. "Selecting public goods institutions: Who likes to punish and reward?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 82(2), pages 501-534, October.
    7. Boosey, Luke & Brookins, Philip & Ryvkin, Dmitry, 2017. "Contests with group size uncertainty: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 212-229.
    8. James W. Roberts & Andrew Sweeting, 2016. "Bailouts and the Preservation of Competition: The Case of the Federal Timber Contract Payment Modification Act," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 257-288, August.
    9. Ertaç, Seda & Hortaçsu, Ali & Roberts, James W., 2011. "Entry into auctions: An experimental analysis," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 168-178, March.
    10. Radosveta Ivanova-Stenzel & Timothy C. Salmon, 2008. "Robustness Of Bidder Preferences Among Auction Institutions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(3), pages 355-368, July.
    11. Glenn Dutcher, E., 2012. "The effects of telecommuting on productivity: An experimental examination. The role of dull and creative tasks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 355-363.
    12. Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Elisabet Rutström, E., 2009. "Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 498-507, June.
    13. J.M.J. Delnoij & K.J.M. De Jaegher & S. Rosenkranz, 2014. "Understanding preferences for ascending auctions, Buy-It-Now auctions and fixed prices," Working Papers 14-02, Utrecht School of Economics.
    14. Sheng, Li, 2010. "Competing or cooperating to host mega events: A simple model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 375-379, January.
    15. R. Isaac & Svetlana Pevnitskaya & Timothy Salmon, 2010. "Do preferences for charitable giving help auctioneers?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 14-44, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:66:y:2008:i:3-4:p:731-747. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.